Welcome

Welcome to the POZ Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

that's not clear yet -- the press is still digesting a very long opinion. But from what I've heard, this only overturns the current ban, and additional legislative steps will have to be taken. But the big threat now is that "a coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution."

I've been told they have enough signatures to put this on the ballot. It will be the biggest fight in gay rights history to get voters to say NO in November. Huge, huge fight, costing millions of dollars. But I actually think we'll win this one.

Yup, I think people can get married without much work. From SF Gate: "The ruling is likely to flood county courthouses with applications from couples newly eligible to marry when the decision takes effect in 30 days."

Logged

October 2007 - Chose love/stupidity over protection23 April - Diagnosed30 April - CD4: 364/22.1% VL: 2,19811 July - Started Viramune/Truvada13 August - Undetectable

I've been told they have enough signatures to put this on the ballot. It will be the biggest fight in gay rights history to get voters to say NO in November. Huge, huge fight, costing millions of dollars. But I actually think we'll win this one.

Peter

That is going on in Florida right now, we will be voting on it in November.. D

Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race. Calvin Coolidge

Accordingly, in light of the conclusions we reach concerning the constitutional questions brought to us for resolution, we determine that the language of section 300 limiting the designation of marriage to a union "between a man and a woman" is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute, and that the remaining statutory language must be understood as making the designation of marriage available both to opposite-sex and same-sex couples. In addition, because the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples imposed by section 308.5 can have no constitutionally permissible effect in light of the constitutional conclusions set forth in this opinion, that provision cannot stand. [Rex notes: 308.5 is Prop 22]

Plaintiffs are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandate directing the appropriate state officials to take all actions necessary to effectuate our ruling in this case so as to ensure that county clerks and other local officials throughout the state, in performing their duty to enforce the marriage statutes in their jurisdictions, apply those provisions in a manner consistent with the decision of this court. Further, as the prevailing parties, plaintiffs are entitled to their costs.

The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the matter is remanded to that court for further action consistent with this opinion.

that's not clear yet -- the press is still digesting a very long opinion. But from what I've heard, this only overturns the current ban, and additional legislative steps will have to be taken. But the big threat now is that "a coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution."

I've been told they have enough signatures to put this on the ballot. It will be the biggest fight in gay rights history to get voters to say NO in November. Huge, huge fight, costing millions of dollars. But I actually think we'll win this one.

Peter

When Gavin Newsome was elected Mayor of San Francisco, The City of San Francisco issued marriage licenses and couples were married in City Hall. So if the current ban is overturned, will those earlier marriages be once again be recognized as a legal union between man and man and woman and woman? Have the best dayMichael

..and even Neanderthal Arnie Schwarzenegger says he will NOT support any proposed constitutional ammendment to overturn this ruling. I'm happy about the even though I don't want to sit through any of his movies.

I wonder if this will mean that D and I will be considered husbands when we visit CA again! I know Canada (where we got married) and several other countries recognize our marriage, but it would be nice to have it recognized here, too.

When Gavin Newsome was elected Mayor of San Francisco, The City of San Francisco issued marriage licenses and couples were married in City Hall. So if the current ban is overturned, will those earlier marriages be once again be recognized as a legal union between man and man and woman and woman? Have the best dayMichael

The California supreme court had previously ruled that those marriages were "void from their inception and a legal nullity" . See page 15 of the opinion in this latest case.I am still reading through the rest of the opinion, but I don't think this new ruling affects the previous one.

However, I believe that with this latest decision, I think those same-sex couples that married in SF and are still together and alive would have the option to marry again, and this time be legally recognized by the state.

However, I believe that with this latest decision, I think those same-sex couples that married in SF and are still together and alive would have the option to marry again, and this time be legally recognized by the state.

Until the next time the carpet gets yanked out from under them. Sorry to come off so pessimisstic but I'm, well...pessimisstic.

Until the next time the carpet gets yanked out from under them. Sorry to come off so pessimisstic but I'm, well...pessimisstic.

Well, IMO today should be celebrated, it is not the right time to be pessimistic. A lot of couples are going to get married before any California constitutional amendment is put on the ballot to try to take the rights of same-sex couples away. I may be on the newlywed list soon.

I think it will be a very big mess if someone tries to take away those rights. I also think the California public opinion has evolved quite a bit since prop 22 was enacted. I am hopeful that this will not be reversed.

David and David, we are thinking the exact same thing. The Davids and Thom and I were married on the same day, in the same hotel in Montreal and we consider ourselves lucky to share the same anniversary them. We hope other State Supreme Courts follow suit and use CA as an example for law.

"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this (ruling)."

PS..iOwa has the same issue before its state supreme court right now.They expect a ruling this Summer.It will be interesting to see how the iOwa state supreme court treatsthis compared to the CA court.

Guess the iOwa court will decide in Sept, not this Summer.What I hope is by then, the California ruling will show the earth hasn’t endedand mass sex between dogs and cats hasten occurred.I'd like to see the Ia court say oh well, WTF, let them marry. Who cares...And THATS the right attitude btw...

If I hear one more politician talking about "the Sanctity of Marriage" I'm going to scream. What does that mean? They always spout off stupid retorts like "next thing you know someone will want to marry a dog"....

I don't know much about the issues people have with gay marriage. I've seen a little bit about it on the news over the years but you know how the media twists things.

Is the oppositions problem with gay marriage the use of the word marriage? I'm thinking surely that isnt the only issue they have. But I dont know so thats why I ask.

I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to any two adult people being married. In my opinion if they are living together representing themselves as a married couple then they should have all the rights of a married couple.

Is the oppositions problem with gay marriage the use of the word marriage? I'm thinking surely that isnt the only issue they have. But I dont know so thats why I ask.

They say their problem is with the WORD marriage. Silly to me...call it whatever you like.....two people love each other and live together as a couple.

I think their problem really is with their fear of homosexuals. It seems totally unfounded too, so I don't really get it either Wendy. I have yet to hear anyone give any kind of reasonable argument for how gay marriage "threatens" hetero marriages. I totally don't get it.

Logged

"Remember my sentimental friend that a heart is not judged by how much you love, but by how much you are loved by others." - The Wizard of Oz

I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to any two adult people being married. In my opinion if they are living together representing themselves as a married couple then they should have all the rights of a married couple.

And you, Wendy, are a hell of a lot more enlightened than a lot of folks.

They say their problem is with the WORD marriage. Silly to me...call it whatever you like.....two people love each other and live together as a couple.I think their problem really is with their fear of homosexuals.

Alan, I think you're exactly right. Why would anybody give a rat's ass who I marry or live with (as long as it's a decent person)? We (gays and lesbians) are the last group where it's somewhat 'acceptable' to try to publicly dictate what goes on in our lives.

That's of course not necessarily true if people are of different citizenships. Sometimes marriage is the only option to get citizenship. But it's just not an option for gays in most countries.

And until that vile piece of legislation known as DOMA is repealed, same-sex couples legally married in MA and CA aren't spouses under federal law; and if one partner is a non-US citizen, no immigration rights can be conferred (immigration being under federal, not state, jurisdiction).

I'm not optimistic that such a repeal is going to take place anytime soon, even though Obama has said that he's in favor of repealing all of DOMA; and the Supreme Court has so far refused to review constitutional challenges to the egregious act, whether on due process, equal protection, or full faith and credit grounds.

Jay

Logged

Her finely-touched spirit had still its fine issues, though they were not widely visible. Her full nature, like that river of which Cyrus broke the strength, spent itself in channels which had no great name on the earth. But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been, is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

And until that vile piece of legislation known as DOMA is repealed, same-sex couples legally married in MA and CA aren't spouses under federal law; and if one partner is a non-US citizen, no immigration rights can be conferred (immigration being under federal, not state, jurisdiction).

I'm not optimistic that such a repeal is going to take place anytime soon, even though Obama has said that he's in favor of repealing all of DOMA; and the Supreme Court has so far refused to review constitutional challenges to the egregious act, whether on due process, equal protection, or full faith and credit grounds.

Jay

Sounds like it's time to impeach those supreme court justices for refusing to do their jobs.

In Steel Magnolias, Sally Field said something about missing a post where all the abuse is heaped upon the mother of the bride. Is there some post which says which person of the gay couple should be the one to propose marriage to the other? Have the best dayMichael

Gay people have just as much right to be stuck in loveless relationships as everyone else!

I'm sorry, should have been more clear Imagine if you will, an openly gay man with AIDS and disabled for so many years (someone like me) meets an openly gay man who is HIV Neg (such as Walter).

In reality, I respect my right to be married like my older brother and my younger sister.

Now, with the change in the law in California, it would appear that I could be married (here in California) to someone who makes me happy. I have been on disability for the better part of 12 years and I'm seeing someone who is HIV Neg, gainfully employed and stable. A legal marriage would bring security for the disabled one and create responsibility for the partner who is not disabled.

I think what I am asking: IN a Poz/Neg gay relationship are there proper manners on which of the partners proposes to the other? Have the best dayMichael

Lovelock Nevada is THE place to get married if you want a quick and easy, Nevada casino style weddin... You can buy your entire wedding right in one convenient location. My older brother and his third wife were married in Lovelock My younger sister and her second husband were also married in Lovelock They found out later, both couples were married in the same Wedding Chapel and BOTH couples were not only married in the same state, the same city, the same chapel... BUT Both couples were married on Valentines Day Doesn't that just make you want to throw up? Have the best dayMichael

By JEREMY W. PETERSALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

“Very shortly, there will be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, and probably thousands and thousands and thousands of gay people who have their marriages recognized by the state,” said Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and has pushed for legalization of gay unions.

Massachusetts and California are the only states that have legalized gay marriage, while others, including New Jersey and Vermont, allow civil unions. Forty-one states have laws limiting marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Legal experts said Mr. Paterson’s decision would make New York the only state that did not itself allow gay marriage but fully recognized same-sex unions entered into elsewhere.

So, combining the populations of MA, CA and NY that's 62.3 million people, or 1/5th the total of the entire country. It's more than a quarter of the same sex couples in the US per 2000 census data.

Compared with the 70 million of Spain, Netherlands and Belgium which are the only European countries where this is also legal we're no more backwards on the issue than anywhere else.

I'm not quite sure your logic weighs up Philly. You are correct in that only Spain, Netherlands and Belgium recognise same sex marriages. On top of that though most of Europe recognises same sex civil unions. Whereas only a couple of the old eastern bloc countries ahve banned them.

But hey, I shouldn't boo hoo on your parade. You guys are much further along on this issue than we are.

Little Steve(who has no intention of ever getting married but supports the right to have that choice)

And some more encouraging news. For the first time a majority of Californias approve of gay marriage. By 51-42 percent, registered voters said they believed same-sex marriage should be legal in California.

There will be a proposition on the November ballot to outlaw gay marriages. It's going to be a close vote. In the meantime, the state has gone ahead and ordered the commencement of gay marriages as of June 17. Of course there is an appeal before the Supreme Court to hold off the marriages until after the November election.

I'm not quite sure your logic weighs up Philly. You are correct in that only Spain, Netherlands and Belgium recognise same sex marriages. On top of that though most of Europe recognises same sex civil unions. Whereas only a couple of the old eastern bloc countries ahve banned them.

Back up Queen. My logic is correct because I cherry picked my facts to suit my agenda!

There are also other states that recognize civil unions and/or domestic partnerships -- CT, DC, HI, ME, NH, NJ, OR, VT, WA. Those are the places that will move forward. The places that have passed constitutional bans are probably hopeless for another generation, but many are states with small populations and less LGBT couples.

Anyway, geographically and culturally Europe extends to the Ural mountains, so indeed half of it is as backwards as half of the US.

(I don't have any desire to get married either, but I'd like to have my wedding registry at Moss.)

So, combining the populations of MA, CA and NY that's 62.3 million people, or 1/5th the total of the entire country. It's more than a quarter of the same sex couples in the US per 2000 census data.

Compared with the 70 million of Spain, Netherlands and Belgium which are the only European countries where this is also legal we're no more backwards on the issue than anywhere else.

It's not a fair comparison at all. Some of the most important rights that are associated with marriage are federal rights. For example, the right to social security survivor benefits, which really matters for those of us who are positive. Doubly so for couples where both spouses are positive. The right to let your foreign spouse immigrate to live with you. The right to file taxes together. The right to leave your estate to your surviving spouse without being taxed after death. Not one person in the US in a same-sex marriage has that. We have a very long way to go in this country before we have equal rights. The California supreme court ruling was a good one, but it only gives same-sex married couples in California about 25% of the rights that straight married couples get - the other 75% are federal rights. Also note that most of the state rights were already available under the name of "domestic partnership" instead of "marriage". What the ruling changed is that the name also needs to be the same. It didn't really afford many new rights, except for those who move to other states like New York and want to get their marriage recognized.

Europe is not a federation unlike the United states. Most of the rights are up to each individual country. Same-sex couples in Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain really do have all the rights of straight couples.

Back up Queen. My logic is correct because I cherry picked my facts to suit my agenda!

There are also other states that recognize civil unions and/or domestic partnerships -- CT, DC, HI, ME, NH, NJ, OR, VT, WA. Those are the places that will move forward. The places that have passed constitutional bans are probably hopeless for another generation, but many are states with small populations and less LGBT couples.

Anyway, geographically and culturally Europe extends to the Ural mountains, so indeed half of it is as backwards as half of the US.

(I don't have any desire to get married either, but I'd like to have my wedding registry at Moss.)

Well, even the state constitution same-sex marriage bans could be struck down all at once, if they were found to be in conflict with the US constitution some day. Of course, given who sits in the US supreme court these days, it may take more than a generation for that to happen. Unless the conservative ones all get sick and die at once while a president favorable to same-sex marriage is in office. It sure won't be the next president since none of the 3 major contenders is in favor.

My argument was mostly of a cultural sort comparatively. As a political matter, you're entirely correct -- but you're not going to take things to the level you want until the large states, with large populations make the moves. It was the same thing with inter-racial marriage.

Of course, you younger sorts are very impatient. Keep in mind that it's only been 5 years since you could butt fuck legally in Texas.

My argument was mostly of a cultural sort comparatively. As a political matter, you're entirely correct -- but you're not going to take things to the level you want until the large states, with large populations make the moves. It was the same thing with inter-racial marriage.

Of course, you younger sorts are very impatient. Keep in mind that it's only been 5 years since you could butt fuck legally in Texas.

I am well aware of that. I made sure I didn't do that the last time I was in Texas .As for impatient, I plead guilty. However, in these forums we all have a disease that can cause us to die prematurely according to statistics. While I hope it doesn't happen, I have HIV and my bf has AIDS. So excuse me for being impatient. I would just like to see this happen in my lifetime.

As it turns out, my bf doesn't want to get married yet. He still needs to get out of the closet first.

Most of the rights are up to each individual country. Same-sex couples in Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain really do have all the rights of straight couples.

I'm not 100% sure about that. My wikistanding is that Canada and Spain are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though South Africa is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws. Other nations all have requirements or restrictions that apply to same-sex marriage that do not apply to opposite-sex marriage. But, I could be wrong